Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 468

Thread: More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    i'm going to explain this as simply as possible.
    denying the use of cookies is not denying the use of interest based advertising.
    I didn't realize you were also an advertising industry expert. Look at increasing scope of expertise you've amassed in just this thread!

    Mainstream interest based advertising depends on cookies. You're obsessing on the corner case of workarounds that don't involve traditional cookies. Yet these issues (and these insane regulations) revolve around traditional cookies.

    You may not be old enough to remember, but the developers of Web browsers had this debate in the late 1990s, when almost every browser by default asked permission before dropping a cookie. This was deemed cumbersome, pointless and a bad user experience, so browser development shifted towards allowing people to choose to restrict cookies if they wanted.

    The kinds of Web services we've enjoyed as a result of this choice is pretty astounding. It doesn't make sense to bring us back to the dark ages (relatively speaking) instead of just educating people what cookies are.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Transparency without comprehension isn't transparency. Without comprehension seeing through the glass provides no more information than an opaque surface. All that's happened is something has been given a different color scheme. That measure, and this, do nothing to educate people and without the transformative effect that real knowledge provides to decision-making nothing has really improved.
    Maybe transparent is the wrong term to go with then. The regulation here, and how its implemented in Dread's linkage, seem to do a fine job of explain what the cookies do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I didn't realize you were also an advertising industry expert. Look at increasing scope of expertise you've amassed in just this thread!

    Mainstream interest based advertising depends on cookies. You're obsessing on the corner case of workarounds that don't involve traditional cookies. Yet these issues (and these insane regulations) revolve around traditional cookies.

    You may not be old enough to remember, but the developers of Web browsers had this debate in the late 1990s, when almost every browser by default asked permission before dropping a cookie. This was deemed cumbersome, pointless and a bad user experience, so browser development shifted towards allowing people to choose to restrict cookies if they wanted.
    You're no older (or barely) than I am Dread

    The internet is a vastly different place than it was a decade or more ago. The regulation here is, from my POV, meant to cumbersome. It appears designed to push advertising past the use of cookies. If I'm not mistaken the boards have previously defended Microsoft for using the UAC (or at least went appshit when someone suggested to turn it off), which seems to use the same concept. Drop the use of cookies, and you can drop the bitching about the regulation.
    Traditional tracking cookies are dead, or need to die before they breed to big of an evercookie problem. This regulation is helping that move along. When you're online, the cornercases or the workarounds, which you have thus far shown no understanding of (ie suggesting the use of ingonito mode), or how mainstream they are, are what you need to understand and plan around the most; they are what will become the mainstream.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-18-2011 at 01:27 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #153
    People here have consistently gotten my age wrong.

    I think you saying that the regulation is meant to be cumbersome says it all. Cookies are simple, consumer-friendly and decade-old technology. Trying to eliminate them wholesale is beyond not-constructive. Beyond not actually addressing privacy issues, it's actually damaging to the Web ecosystem.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    it's actually damaging to the Web ecosystem.
    you keep saying this, but you haven't shown this. Its forcing an evolution obviously, but not one that wasn't already prepared. You've given us a link where consumers are backing the ability to have a choice, but you haven't shown any damage from this.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #155
    I think banning a standard practice that's been in place for over a decade and undercutting a key multi-billion dollar revenue model for the Internet is a lot more than "forcing an evolution."

    You haven't shown any damage from industry-standard advertising cookies. Just conjecture and hand-wringing about the perils of giving people choices.

  6. #156
    Seems like a good closing note on the front page of the WSJ. Which, BTW, I think highlights a clear emerging distinction between traditional cookies and malignant super cookies and other un-removable tracking software.

    And for the record, yes, I would support making technology like supercookies illegal down the road. But the distinction with standard cookies for the end-user is pretty clear.

    Latest in Web Tracking: Stealthy 'Supercookies'
    By JULIA ANGWIN

    Major websites such as MSN.com and Hulu.com have been tracking people's online activities using powerful new methods that are almost impossible for computer users to detect, new research shows.

    The new techniques, which are legal, reach beyond the traditional "cookie," a small file that websites routinely install on users' computers to help track their activities online. Hulu and MSN were installing files known as "supercookies," which are capable of re-creating users' profiles after people deleted regular cookies, according to researchers at Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley.

    Websites and advertisers have faced strong criticism for collecting and selling personal data about computer users without their knowledge, and a half-dozen privacy bills have been introduced on Capitol Hill this year.
    Many of the companies found to be using the new techniques say the tracking was inadvertent and they stopped it after being contacted by the researchers.

    Mike Hintze, associate general counsel at MSN parent company Microsoft Corp., said that when the supercookie "was brought to our attention, we were alarmed. It was inconsistent with our intent and our policy." He said the company removed the computer code, which had been created by Microsoft.

    Hulu posted a statement online saying it "acted immediately to investigate and address" the issues identified by researchers. It declined to comment further.

    The spread of advanced tracking techniques shows how quickly data-tracking companies are adapting their techniques. When The Wall Street Journal examined tracking tools on major websites last year, most of these more aggressive techniques were not in wide use.

    But as consumers become savvier about protecting their privacy online, the new techniques appear to be gaining ground.

    Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer, a Stanford Ph.D. candidate, identified what is known as a "history stealing" tracking service on Flixster.com, a social-networking service for movie fans recently acquired by Time Warner Inc., and on Charter Communications Inc.'s Charter.net.

    Such tracking peers into people's Web-browsing histories to see if they previously had visited any of more than 1,500 websites, including ones dealing with fertility problems, menopause and credit repair, the researchers said. History stealing has been identified on other sites in recent years, but rarely at that scale.

    Mr. Mayer determined that the history stealing on those two sites was being done by Epic Media Group, a New York digital-marketing company. Charter and Flixster said they didn't have a direct relationship with Epic, but as is common in online advertising, Epic's tracking service was installed by advertisers.

    Don Mathis, chief executive of Epic, says his company was inadvertently using the technology and no longer uses it. He said the information was used only to verify the accuracy of data that it had bought from other vendors.

    Both Flixster and Charter say they were unaware of Epic's activities and have since removed all Epic technology from their sites. Charter did the same last year with a different vendor doing history stealing on a smaller scale.

    Gathering information about Web-browsing history can offer valuable clues about people's interests, concerns or household finances. Someone researching a disease online, for example, might be thought to have the illness, or at least to be worried about it.

    The potential for privacy legislation in Washington has driven the online-ad industry to establish its own rules, which it says are designed to alert computer users of tracking and offer them ways to limit the use of such data by advertisers.

    Under the self-imposed guidelines, collecting health and financial data about individuals is permissible as long as the data don't contain financial-account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions or medical records. But using techniques such as history stealing and supercookies "to negate consumer choices" about privacy violates the guidelines, says Lee Peeler, executive vice president of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, one of several groups enforcing the rules.

    Until now, the council "has been trying to push companies into the program, not kick them out," Mr. Peeler says. "You can expect to see more formal public enforcement soon."

    Last year, the online-ad industry launched a program to label ads that are sent to computer users based on tracking data. The goal is to provide users a place to click in the ad itself that would let them opt out of receiving such targeted ads. (It doesn't turn off tracking altogether.) The program has been slow to catch on, new findings indicate.

    The industry has estimated that nearly 80% of online display ads are based on tracking data. Mr. Mayer, along with researchers Jovanni Hernandez and Akshay Jagadeesh of Stanford's Computer Science Security Lab, found that only 9% of the ads they examined on the 500 most popular websites—62 out of 627 ads—contained the label. They looked at standard-size display ads placed by third parties between Aug. 4 and 11.

    The industry says self-regulation is working. Peter Kosmala, managing director of the Digital Advertising Alliance, says the labeling program has made "tremendous progress."

    Mr. Mayer discovered that several Microsoft-owned websites, including MSN.com and Microsoft.com, were using supercookies.
    Supercookies are stored in different places than regular cookies, such as within the Web browser's "cache" of previously visited websites, which is where the Microsoft ones were located. Privacy-conscious users who know how to find and delete regular cookies might have trouble locating supercookies.

    Mr. Mayer also found supercookies on Microsoft's advertising network, which places ads for other companies across the Internet. As a result, people could have had the supercookie installed on their machines without visiting Microsoft websites directly. Even if they deleted regular cookies, information about their Web-browsing could have been retained by Microsoft.

    Microsoft's Mr. Hintze said that the company removed the code after being contacted by Mr. Mayer, and that Microsoft is still trying to figure out why the code was created. A spokeswoman said the data gathered by the supercookie were used only by Microsoft and weren't shared with outside companies.

    Separately last month, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, led by law professor Chris Hoofnagle, found supercookie techniques used by dozens of sites. One of them, Hulu, was storing tracking coding in files related to Adobe Systems Inc.'s widely used Flash software, which enables many of the videos found online, the researchers said in a report. Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, Walt Disney Co. and News Corp., owner of The Wall Street Journal.

    Hulu was one of several companies that entered into a $2.4 million class-action settlement last year related to the use of Flash cookies to circumvent users who tried to delete their regular cookies.

    The Berkeley researchers also found that Hulu's website contained code from Kissmetrics, a company that analyzes website-traffic data. Kissmetrics was inserting supercookies into users' browser caches and into files associated with the latest version of the standard programming language used to build Web pages, known as HTML5.

    In a blog post after the report was released, Kissmetrics said it would use only regular cookies for future tracking. The company didn't return calls seeking comment.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...675931492.html

  7. #157
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    And candidly, I don't want the same old ads of yore. I don't want stupid banners on weather.com telling me about 1 easy trick for a flat stomach, or cheap home loans. I want ads that target me based on the things I'm actually interested in and may be useful to me as an anonymized browser.
    So, so much... THIS!. I remember the 90's, when the only profitable advertising was for porn sites, and it really sucked. Webmasters had to make a choice between allowing graphic porn banner ads and turning a profit. Today, on account of my limited acceptance of analytics cookies (I still block cookies on some browsing topics, and from some domains I don't want ads based off of), the ads I see on the net are for services I might actually want, which has, for my experience, at least, transformed ads from a painful annoyance to a service. I get information on products and services that interest me, and the companies in question get the chance to pitch their goods to an interested party.

    I honestly can't think of any approach that works better, and so long as Google remains trustworthy, I welcome the opportunity to learn about prducts and services I ma be interested in, as opposed to the old dynamic where I'd see ads for breast enlargement and gay porn on a regular basis. And in all honesty, the current job hunt dynamic reminds me of that past. I recently uploaded an updated resume to a major job search site, and ever since, I've been getting half a dozen calls a day from dumbass motherfuckers who obviously didn't even read my resume offering me positions I clearly don't want, and absolutely wouldn't take, even if my choices were between that and armed robbery. It's actually gotten so bad that I've turned my ringer off 24/7, and only check my messages twice a week or so - if I don't have the caller in my address book, there's about a 0% chance of me answering the phone. Pain in the fucking ass.

    It seems to me like the new, trackable, targeted advertising experience is better for every involved party, and legislating an end to that is the height of stupidity... particularly given that I much, much, MUCH more fear being uniquely IDed by a government entity that would seek to imprison me than a corporate entity that would seek to offer me beneficial services in exchange for money... or vice versa. I don't want to see ads for gay porn, or get offers to sell whatthefuckever for whothefuckever. I'd much rather be exposed to advertising I might find useful, and I have to assume that advertisers would much rather target a potentially interested audience than one that's going to block ads from their domain.

    The only reasons I can imagine for a legislative ban of a win-win scenario involve rank incompetence, widespread stupidity, justifications for nuking the planet from orbit and irrefutably demonstrative evidence that humanity as a whole is dumber than a bacterial culture.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I was slightly confused why the ban was EU-wide... except for the Netherlands.
    It appears Apple already has a lawsuit in the Netherlands that is making its way through the courts. Apple has also been caught providing fake and doctored evidence in that suit as well.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-20-2011 at 02:50 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Seems like a good closing note on the front page of the WSJ. Which, BTW, I think highlights a clear emerging distinction between traditional cookies and malignant super cookies and other un-removable tracking software.

    And for the record, yes, I would support making technology like supercookies illegal down the road. But the distinction with standard cookies for the end-user is pretty clear.
    This article is a pretty good example of how many internet users (and site owners) out there don't understand how companies use cookies or track their bahavior. It took a standford study for someone to point out what MSN was doing. MSN, the default homepage of new Windows and IE installs. Don't see how you're going to call something like that a cornercase or not mainstream.

    but at least the article educated you enough to not try and claim the supercookies were comparable to a virus this time.

    And when exactly is good time to crack down on this evolution of the tracking cookie? before or after it becomes a muti-million dollar industry standard that would cause those trading in our information to suffer irreparable harm from regulation that helps better inform the consumer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You haven't shown any damage from industry-standard advertising cookies.
    I've made no such claims of damage. I was referring only to the ability of the consumer being more in control of their information, the point of the UK bill.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-20-2011 at 02:58 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #160
    Dread is really going to love this.
    Thilo Weichert, who works for the data protection centre of the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, said the social network’s application allowing internet users to express their appreciation of something online [the link button we use here], illegally cobbled together a profile of their web habits.

    “Facebook can trace every click on a website, how long I’m on it, what I’m interested in,” he said. According to Weichert, all the information was sent to the US company even if someone was not a Facebook member.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #161
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    And when exactly is good time to crack down on this evolution of the tracking cookie? before or after it becomes a muti-million dollar industry standard that would cause those trading in our information to suffer irreparable harm from regulation that helps better inform the consumer?
    I thought you lefties opposed preemptive strikes. Or is it only preemptive strikes from Texans that are morally abhorrent?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This article is a pretty good example of how many internet users (and site owners) out there don't understand how companies use cookies or track their bahavior. It took a standford study for someone to point out what MSN was doing. MSN, the default homepage of new Windows and IE installs. Don't see how you're going to call something like that a cornercase or not mainstream.

    but at least the article educated you enough to not try and claim the supercookies were comparable to a virus this time.

    And when exactly is good time to crack down on this evolution of the tracking cookie? before or after it becomes a muti-million dollar industry standard that would cause those trading in our information to suffer irreparable harm from regulation that helps better inform the consumer?


    I've made no such claims of damage. I was referring only to the ability of the consumer being more in control of their information, the point of the UK bill.
    Cain is right, you can't just keep saying something over and over until it's right.

    I am claiming that supercookies could be legislatively comparable to a virus, as it seems almost impossible to remove. There is a very clear difference between a standard cookie (simple, anonymized and removable or opt-outable) and a "supercookie" that so complex and unremovable it may as well be malware.

    Conflating regular cookies and super cookies is intellectually dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Dread is really going to love this.
    And you support this BS as Germany moves to ban the Facebook "Like" button? If so, you are a luddite.

    Is there any Web technology the German's won't ban? At least the French and EU bureaucrats ban things because they were created in the US. The Germans just seem to hate the Internet.

  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Cain is right, you can't just keep saying something over and over until it's right.

    Where did I state something that wasn't stated in the article?

    I am claiming that supercookies could be legislatively comparable to a virus, as it seems almost impossible to remove. There is a very clear difference between a standard cookie (simple, anonymized and removable or opt-outable) and a "supercookie" that so complex and unremovable it may as well be malware.
    malware ≠ virus
    Conflating regular cookies and super cookies is intellectually dishonest.
    I'm not combining them yet. But just like the current tracking cookie is an evolution in advertising, so is the evercookie. every positive advertising related remark you've made about the current level of tracking cookies can be done better by evercookies. When do you draw the line, what level of simpleton of you willing to protect, and why?


    And you support this BS as Germany moves to ban the Facebook "Like" button? If so, you are a luddite.

    Is there any Web technology the German's won't ban? At least the French and EU bureaucrats ban things because they were created in the US. The Germans just seem to hate the Internet.
    and we are back to square one, you're misdirecting the outrage over how a service is used towards not wanting the service to exist. Even tried to take the leg work out of reading an entire webpage and quoted the important bit for you.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  14. #164
    One wonders if the Facebook Like-button, as it is implemented today, is really in violation of German privacy laws. Is it? Does anyone know?


    Re. sneakier cookies, I too would like to know why a supercookie or evercookie or whatever you call it is more likely to be illegal or at least deplorable compared to other creative cookie uses. Re. outrage, let's take it easy eh. The privacy and online tracking debate is probably as alive and heated in the US as it is in Germany. Probably stronger
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I'm not combining them yet. But just like the current tracking cookie is an evolution in advertising, so is the evercookie. every positive advertising related remark you've made about the current level of tracking cookies can be done better by evercookies. When do you draw the line, what level of simpleton of you willing to protect, and why?
    Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

    The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.

    We're not talking about hypothetical tracking technology that exists down the line. We're talking about cookies, and your desire to make it basically impossible to use them for any purposes without cumbersome permissions and settings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and we are back to square one, you're misdirecting the outrage over how a service is used towards not wanting the service to exist. Even tried to take the leg work out of reading an entire webpage and quoted the important bit for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    One wonders if the Facebook Like-button, as it is implemented today, is really in violation of German privacy laws. Is it? Does anyone know?
    The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).

  16. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

    The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.
    They're not impossible to remove or to avoid, they just seem to be a bloody chore. Why legislate against something just because it's a chore?

    Re. "anonymous", isn't Facebook's ability to associate browsing habits, IP-addresses, etc. with a real identity part of it's appeal????

    The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).
    Here are a few thoughts on your own bureaucrats:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lly-happen.ars

    Perhaps they will help you put aside your obsession with persuading us of Germany's or OG's numerous faults.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #167
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.
    Err, how is that anonymized?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

    The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.
    Thank you for admitting that you either don't understand the law, or haven't bothered to research it. The UK law does not ban all cookies, or make websites ask for permission to use all cookies. Cookies that are required for service, search as opting into be remembered for log in, are one of the many exceptions, online shopping cookies are another popular exception.

    I've also been using evercookies and supercookies interchangably since the lingo hasn't been ironed out yet and you didn't seem to have a gasp of how they work. I assume at this point you are only using supercookie to refer to flash cookies, which Adobe now makes it easier to delete. And evercookies as this. Meaning that supercookies are easier to remove than evercookies.


    We're not talking about hypothetical tracking technology that exists down the line. We're talking about cookies, and your desire to make it basically impossible to use them for any purposes without cumbersome permissions and settings.
    Not one example I've provided so far is hypothetical. Everything thus far works, and as your own linkage shows, already out in the wild.



    The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).
    You need to read the article that better describes what the like button does. Its not about cookies on the user's machines, its about Facebook using the like button to track users and store that information in their own systems. Facebook says its cool cause they only use that information for 90 days, and the German government obviously has a problem with that. Again, its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    They're not impossible to remove or to avoid, they just seem to be a bloody chore. Why legislate against something just because it's a chore?

    Re. "anonymous", isn't Facebook's ability to associate browsing habits, IP-addresses, etc. with a real identity part of it's appeal????

    Here are a few thoughts on your own bureaucrats:

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lly-happen.ars

    Perhaps they will help you put aside your obsession with persuading us of Germany's or OG's numerous faults.
    Yes, but ease-of-removal is key to keeping cookies open and easy to use. Cookies became standard because they are simple and anyone can easily opt-out of them (it's built-in to browsers). Cookie-mimicking malware goes much deeper and eliminates that choice. That's a major difference.

    You linked to an article claiming we need more European-style regulation. Why did you think I would agree with that? That guy wants to create an unelected bureaucracy to police legitimate Internet companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Err, how is that anonymized?
    Because it doesn't contain personal information. It's a string of numbers and letters, not a key-logger. You or I could post our cookies and it would be meaningless to everyone.

    Want to see your Google cookie? Go to www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and see the horrible, racist and malicious things stored in that cookie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Thank you for admitting that you either don't understand the law, or haven't bothered to research it. The UK law does not ban all cookies, or make websites ask for permission to use all cookies. Cookies that are required for service, search as opting into be remembered for log in, are one of the many exceptions, online shopping cookies are another popular exception.

    [...]

    You need to read the article that better describes what the like button does. Its not about cookies on the user's machines, its about Facebook using the like button to track users and store that information in their own systems. Facebook says its cool cause they only use that information for 90 days, and the German government obviously has a problem with that. Again, its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it.
    I'm not playing slice and dice. Yet I very clearly understand these issues more than you do, as you keep getting stuck in the weeds, ranting about hypotheticals and and missing the principles behind this discussion.

    Do you not see any problem with a legislative and regulatory apparatus which allows certain sites to use decade-old cookie technology, while preventing other sites from doing so? The government should not be picking "appropriate" Web services like that. It's a massive open invitation to incumbent companies to use regulation to strangle future competitors who may potentially steal customers from incumbents.

    Not to mention flat-out corruption, in which lobbyists would swarm regulators to quash nascent Web services on obscure regulatory grounds. How can you of all people not see why this is a bad thing?

    Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in the weeds on the German government's assault on Facebook's basic functionality. If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.

    The German government's ludicrous position is people shouldn't use features on Facebook because they require user-inputed data.

  20. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and we are back to square one, you're misdirecting the outrage over how a service is used towards not wanting the service to exist. Even tried to take the leg work out of reading an entire webpage and quoted the important bit for you.
    I'm confused. Users knowingly, overtly, deliberately give their information to Facebook by using clicking that Like button, and you agree that this is an unallowable invasion of their privacy?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I'm confused. Users knowingly, overtly, deliberately give their information to Facebook by using clicking that Like button, and you agree that this is an unallowable invasion of their privacy?
    You don't have to click it. Simply being logged into the facebook's services activates what the button can gather and send back. Sites can also abuse how it works and can make you autolike a page simply by visiting it (but thats an unrelated subject).
    Basically, if you are logged into facebook and start using other websites, Facebook can track you, and tie all that information to your personal account, even if you don't go through facebook to get to those pages. There is no anonymity here.

    According to the complaint this information is gathered even on non-members.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-21-2011 at 05:39 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You don't have to click it. Simply being logged into the facebook's services activates what the button can gather and send back..
    You mean like how you posting an image allowed you to collect IP addresses for almost everyone who loaded the page?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    You mean like how you posting an image allowed you to collect IP addresses for almost everyone who loaded the page?
    It provides an IP for everyone that loaded the picture. Issue is how correct that IP is.

    Luckily, when I performed that example, I didn't have your personal information to tie it to, and I didn't send it overseas to sell it to marketers.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-21-2011 at 05:55 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  24. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I'm not playing slice and dice. Yet I very clearly understand these issues more than you do, as you keep getting stuck in the weeds, ranting about hypotheticals and and missing the principles behind this discussion.
    Again with accusing of hypotheticals. Yet, as usual, you haven't shown anything. I'm provide very real and concrete examples of what is out there, using them to show how wrong you are on the techie parts of this subject, as well as having to correct you on the wording of the laws.
    Do you not see any problem with a legislative and regulatory apparatus which allows certain sites to use decade-old cookie technology, while preventing other sites from doing so? The government should not be picking "appropriate" Web services like that. It's a massive open invitation to incumbent companies to use regulation to strangle future competitors who may potentially steal customers from incumbents.
    Is there any industry that isn't regulated in some manner of what is and is not allowed? Even you're for outlawing supercookies, even though you haven't shown that you understand how they are controlled.
    Not to mention flat-out corruption, in which lobbyists would swarm regulators to quash nascent Web services on obscure regulatory grounds. How can you of all people not see why this is a bad thing?
    talk about hypotheticals
    Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in the weeds on the German government's assault on Facebook's basic functionality. If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.
    another example of you not understanding the complaint, or how the technology works (see reply to Fuzzy)
    The German government's ludicrous position is people shouldn't use features on Facebook because they require user-inputed data.
    here we go again. Its not the service, its the how and what referring to the information thats gathered. In otherwords (someone stop me if I've said this before): "its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it."
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-21-2011 at 06:10 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  25. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Yes, but ease-of-removal is key to keeping cookies open and easy to use. Cookies became standard because they are simple and anyone can easily opt-out of them (it's built-in to browsers). Cookie-mimicking malware goes much deeper and eliminates that choice. That's a major difference.
    But you can just choose not to have flash, for example, or to just avoid sites that use such sinister devices.

    You linked to an article claiming we need more European-style regulation. Why did you think I would agree with that?
    I linked to the article because it contained some discussion on why anyone--politicians, private citizens, and businesses--in the US would want more "European-style regulation".

    Because it doesn't contain personal information. It's a string of numbers and letters, not a key-logger. You or I could post our cookies and it would be meaningless to everyone.
    Of course, to anyone who can tie a cookie to, say, your true identity, it would be meaningful. It would reveal eg. your fondness for midget-porn (not yours personally of course). Facebook would know as soon as you went on a midget-porn binge whether you Liked it or not.

    Want to see your Google cookie? Go to www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and see the horrible, racist and malicious things stored in that cookie.
    I hear Google's better than most at addressing privacy concerns

    If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.
    You don't actually have to click anything, you just have to load the page. This isn't exactly new.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #176
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    You mean like how you posting an image allowed you to collect IP addresses for almost everyone who loaded the page?
    Right, but that's only evil when corporations do it. When people, or (better yet) governments do it, it's not evil, and may even be good, depending on the political affiliation of the individual or government doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    But you can just choose not to have flash, for example, or to just avoid sites that use such sinister devices.
    Not sure that's as viable an option as you seem to think it is. Try running NoScript for a day, surfing as you normally do, and not allowing any blocked scripts or objects - you probably won't find a single site that works as intended.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  27. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    It provides an IP for everyone that loaded the picture. Issue is how correct that IP is.

    Luckily, when I performed that example, I didn't have your personal information to tie it to, and I didn't send it overseas to sell it to marketers.
    But according to that quote you posted, this information is gathered and sent even for people who aren't members of Facebook. For people who have associated themselves with Facebook, I kinda have to ask "did you read the terms of service." That sort of data collection is what Facebook does, and does quite openly, it's the reason people use it at all though they naturally put a more personal cast on the utilities. When you deliberately, formally waive your expectation of privacy then you don't shouldn't expect privacy. Collecting and potentially disseminating private information who did not so waive their expectations and rights is something else but I don't understand how Facebook can gather that in the first place. Browser fingerprints sure and you demonstrated how the button itself can allow it to collect IP addresses, but collecting that sort of information is kinda endemic to the Net's structure. It literally can't operate if sites can't do that, it's literally integral to sending requested information and hence cannot reasonably be declared illegal if you want the 'Net to function at all.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Not sure that's as viable an option as you seem to think it is.
    I don't actually think it's a viable option, I think it's a rubbish option that's no better than various other examples of "choice" available to consumers, tax-payers, internet users, etc. I suppose you can "choose not to have Facebook", I dunno. And I suppose avoiding flash works to some extent for iOS users.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  29. #179
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Oh, I see. Well, I do choose to not have Facebook, and that works just fine for me. The difference, and the flaw in your analogy, is that Flash is a technology, not a particular company. Whoever uses Flash can choose to use it benignly, or can choose to implement flash cookies and other pain-in-the-ass tracking technologies, but it's not a situation where there's one rule or standard for every site that uses Flash. Facebook, on the other hand, does consistently apply the same shitty ToS and privacy-busting technologies across every user's page. (And again, to be clear, this is a good reason not to use Facebook, but not a good reason to regulate what consensual agreements people can enter into over the 'net.)
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  30. #180
    Facebook's TOS and FAQs have traditionally been about as penetrable and as helpful as EPA regulations on dust. By their own admission, they've been bad at informing their users of what's going on. "Consensual" is a tricky concept when you don't/can't know what you may be explicitly or implicitly consenting to now and in the future. I don't know about legislation, I'm only interested in the current discussion on privacy issues in the US and in Europe
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •